I'm going to be getting this game as soon as possible. As a fan of the Walking Dead (comics) it is hard to believe it took me so long to get around to getting it. I think it's because I was worried it would do nothing but make me depressed, like the comic. Thank God for Jim, as he has assured that there is humor to be had in this game's journey as well.

Walking Dead was a good experience but can hardly be called a "game", there's hardly any gameplay in it. It's more like an interactive movie and for something with its main emphasis on story it doesn't even have multiple endings. In addition for people who played the scenarios multiple times they'll realized the player's choice is an illusion which doesn't really change anything. The people who are going to die are going to die and the ones that's going to live will live.

While it certainly deserves mentioning, it's by no way "game of the year".

The Walking Dead is a bloody amazing piece of work. But it took way too long for each episode to release so i'd forgotten peoples names, what had happened etc. This of coufse can just be solved by waiting for the whole series to release before playing. Like the show. You want to wait for the box set.

My only gripe with the actual GAME is that they've followed story beats from the show too closely. I want to see them really branch out on their own next time they clearly have the talent.

Edit: Didn't realize you had a PC as well. You could buy it in episodes on console, and download the whole thing at once on PC (you had to buy a season pass rather than episode by episode).

I appreciate the tips but I don't have a iOS device and my laptop is close to five years old, I used an Xbox 360 until it broke down recently. I'm just going to have to wait it out until I can afford a new 360 or PS3 :-P

The requirements for the game are surprisingly low. Check out Can You Run it? to be sure.

redknightalex:The Walking Dead is being talked about so much this year, not to mention in so many GotY categories over many different sites, that I almost feel compelled to play it. My main problem? It's from Telltale Games.

I've played a few of their games and, frankly, they sucked. Game play was non-existent, writing absolutely horrible and cliched, and it always felt like a waste of time. Jurassic Park was my first episodic game from them that I played and I only did it because they were free and they each had trophies. I'm trying to get through Back to the Future except...how can anyone play a game that's so point-and-click? It's as if they are still making games for a mid '90s audience.

From what I understand, The Walking Dead has the same gameplay as these other games but with better writing? Eh...I don't know.

And for the record, if there was ever a game that made me cry, it was Mass Effect 3 (aka the game-which-must-not-be-named), and not because of how it ended. Journey was also a bawler. Climbing up the mountain in the snow by myself...damn.

Wait, Jim, did you never cry during Journey? Well...

Sort of. They turn a lot of adventure game tropes on their heads, and usual game mechanics can change. Even the "hint system" (which you can turn off -as I did), starts saying odd things toward the end.

Part of it is the responsibility you have with this child, and they manage to do that well - despite it being one of the most hated gaming cliches.

Role-playing. I'd say it works pretty well with The Walking Dead. I didn't really feel like I was game-playing.

RPG has become a meaningless enough term already that I may have to let that one go.

On the computer RPG used to mean a game about killing mobs for XP, so you can kill stronger mobs for more XP, but now it just seems to mean game.

So subgenres to the rescue once again. I'd like to call this subgenre of the RPG: an IAF.

It's the "game" label I have more trouble with. Call it a "role-playing story", "role-playing experience", anything but a game. There's nothing to win, not enough challenge to be counted as a game.

I'd say TWD still a game, but it's just that the gameplay is very, very poor and only the presentation and story get much attention.So a game that should not be GOTY material, only the new blood thinks otherwise, so the decline continues.

What makes this game less of a game than adventure games like Monkey Island or Phoenix Wright? What about games like Deadly Premonition or Asura's Wrath, where the gameplay is worse than the story and cutscene bits and gets tiring long before the game is over, but the story still makes them interesting to play? I'm happy that the Walking Dead won this year because it made Jim tear up. I'm not sure if I'll give ut a try, but that's because I didn't like the comic all that much and I'm very aware that all the choices are lies that make no difference, which annoys me. It should not be disqualified just because it isn't very heavy on the gameplay side of things.

RedmistSM:What makes this game less of a game than adventure games like Monkey Island or Phoenix Wright? What about games like Deadly Premonition or Asura's Wrath, where the gameplay is worse than the story and cutscene bits and gets tiring long before the game is over, but the story still makes them interesting to play? I'm happy that the Walking Dead won this year because it made Jim tear up. I'm not sure if I'll give ut a try, but that's because I didn't like the comic all that much and I'm very aware that all the choices are lies that make no difference, which annoys me. It should not be disqualified just because it isn't very heavy on the gameplay side of things.

I'm on episode two of walking dead and I don't like the gameplay very much, I'd love if I could see the game without playing it. Those type of games I prefer to play on my DS confortable on my bed.

I also have a problem with choice games, I'm a very curious person by nature and i can't stand the fact that I can only choose one option and cannot see what would be different by choosing the other options unless I replay later which I don't want to.

well, I took his recommendation here, and went and bought it straight after seeing this video. I already finished it and must say it was worth every penny. After Christmas I'm going to have another run through it, it was so engrossing.

lockgar:Liability tier?No mention to perhaps one of the most hated characters in the game. Who simple existence caused so much harm and misery to those around him?

This game is amazing how they made me hate a character so much despite he is never actually doing anything against you intentionally.

Although I'm against the games decision of not letting you get rid of him as you see him.

Strange thing was, I never hated him. I always just pitied him so much. Every action he did, he thought he was helping, but every time it made things worse. The only time I actually felt truly angry at him was when I left him on watch for Clem, and he didn't seem to take it seriously.

In the end though, when I had the choice to let him die, or risk everyone to save him, I listened to his pitiful pleas to let him go, and I thought at least he gets to choose his end, and he fell.

And then I realized in horror as he survived the fall, and had probably given him one of the worst deaths of the group. All because he was such a klutz. He never deserved that.

While I'm not going to disagree with your choice, since there's only one game that really inched above it for me, there is one thing that I feel the need to point out even it already has been. You mentioned TWD keeps track of player's choices more then any other title. There's only one game that comes to mind that goes above it, and that's Mass Effect 3.

Of course, mentioning ME3 by itself is enough to stir up a huge controversy. But for me, it was the game of the year. I loved it because the entire thing felt like the final act. All of the players coming back for one last bow before the curtain closed without feeling like a self-grandizing wank. And even without the ending (which I didn't hate for various reasons, but was still disappointed by), the experience as a whole was great enough where it managed to keep me going. Wanting to see what came next, and seeing how I'd impacted the game's world.

Mind you, that's not saying that I think Mass Effect deserved this over TWD. The thing about The Walking Dead is that is was compact. The experience never felt like it dragged on that much. It really held the line with moral ambiguity in a way that Mass Effect couldn't even come close to touching I think. Mass Effect always had it's line in the sand. You were good or you were bad. TWD erased that line and simply said "There is no good or bad. You are a person trying to survive and protect in a world that damn-sure wants you dead. What do you do?"

And while I love the characters from Mass Effect, I didn't care about any of them as much as I did Clem. Some came close. But they never were able to pass the bar that Clem did. In TWD, I never truly hated any character for who they were. Even the 'bad' ones I could understand their motivations for what they did. I did hate some of them, but it was because of what they tried to do to me and those I lead and not because of what they did alone. The villains weren't always villains. They were sometimes just people choosing how they would survive.

So I really love ME3 and TWD for close to the same reasons. But when it comes down to it, my feelings of ME3 are stronger. I loved ME3's gameplay. I loved the wide range of characters and the feeling of satisfaction that came with a story that spanned years for us. I knew I was going to love it though. TWD came out of nowhere and made a huge impact. But it just wasn't quite enough to knock ME3 out of it's place for me.

Strange thing was, I never hated him. I always just pitied him so much. Every action he did, he thought he was helping, but every time it made things worse. The only time I actually felt truly angry at him was when I left him on watch for Clem, and he didn't seem to take it seriously.

In the end though, when I had the choice to let him die, or risk everyone to save him, I listened to his pitiful pleas to let him go, and I thought at least he gets to choose his end, and he fell.

And then I realized in horror as he survived the fall, and had probably given him one of the worst deaths of the group. All because he was such a klutz. He never deserved that.

Great game.

I agree. I never hated him either. Some people despised him with a fiery passion, but all I ever felt was pity. In a way he honestly kind of reminded me of myself. He had a good heart and did things he thought would help. He wasn't the brightest of the group, and he caused more misery then any other. But he didn't do it out of malice. He did it out of misplaced kindness. And I have to respect that more then anything.

But you did miss one major part with him by letting him go. One that gave me a lot more respect for him as a character.

I hated that guy with a passion by the end of the game, my friend tried to make a case for to me to like him but there just isn't anything there that makes me want too.It really shows TellTales ability to write though as making a likeable and relate able character is easy enough but making a character like Ben is incredibly difficult and can easily have the scales tipped from buffoon to plain helpless.

My emotions swung like saloon doors in a hurricane for some characters, TWD is a rich and immersive game where you truly build a relationship with the people around you.I love this game.

I found this game because of you Jim and I have to say THANK GOD FOR YOU. This game is truly amazing beyond words and is simply the very best game I have played in my life, since I started playing games on the original NES.

Too bad the Walking dead is not a game, and I would argue that as such cannot be "the game of the year". Wouldn´t it stand to reason that a game is actually needed to win such acclaim?

Its a clipshow done in the way of a tvserie with some quicktime events, and a few fake choices thrown in for good measurement its more in style with an semi-interactive tvserie.

No actually, its more in line with the old chooce your own adventure books than a real game. Its basically chooce A or B, it doesnt matter in the end as there will only be one "right" choice so its a mood point.

IMO Whether character Y or character H survives isn´t choice in terms of an interactive game, and that is for most parts your "choice" in the walking dead. The press button or something happens or to make something happen isn´t really a choice neither as its often press Q or die. If you die, you reload and keeps pressing Q until you succeed. Thats not choice, thats poor gameplay, IF gameplay at all. Sometimes pressing Q for something doesn´t even do anything, its fake as in you cannot change the predetermined outcome of said event.

This "game" isn´t more interactive than watching a tvserie or reading a book. I can scream at the screen all I want but that doesn´t affect the outcome. What is predetermined to happen WILL happen regardless of my input or lack thereoff.

Its not bad entertainment per se; the voiceacting is superb, the graphical visiuals are good and engaging, and I was emotional engaged in the last scene. But the story or plot is poor, full of zombie cliché and "This game series adapts to the choices you make. The story is tailored by how you play" is an outright lie. You have no choice to nib problems in the bud, no choice to tell people to shut the fuck up when they stand arguing in the middle of a zombie outbreak, no choice to prepare yourself in anyway for the problems to come down the line. I did not steal the food from the car, but still the major plot revolves around it. How does that correspond with "This game series adapts to the choices you make. The story is tailored by how you play"?

In the end my point being that the walking dead is not a game, and having a nongame win "the game of the year" is an insult to the actual games found in the four previous episodes.

*All of the above is of course my own personal opinion, and does not represent fact or absolut truth. Its one guy´s opinion, so take it as such.

I know it's a very Nintendo fanboy card to play, but games are about Gameplay, and gameplay should enhance the experience of the story.

Well, some might argue that games are about the experience and, as long as I enjoyed the experience, then there is no reason to worry about how much interactivity or gameplay that there is in the game.

There's no reason to think that there is a minimum level or type of interactivity or gameplay that is required to enhance an experience, as long as the experience is good, right? This was a phenomenal experience for what it was.

Yep I agree, engagement doesn't fully respond to gameplay (about that term "interactivity", don't get me started, but a game is not more interactive because you can press more buttons, that has nothing to do with engagement or interactivity), but then there are more issues with the Walking Dead.

To keep it on the less theoretical side, it wasn't a bad experience for sure, but I did not think the game iself was enhanced by the functional implementation(in fact, the structured nature of the game often managed to break the 4th wall, particularly when dealing with the few puzzles of the game), particulary in some situations where I KNEW EXACTLY -what- to do, but not -how- to do it (the old try everything everywhere philosophy of adventure games).

It is all a matter of experience for sure, but when you -feel- that you are doing what the game wants you to be doing, rather than whay you think you should be doing, it shatters the illusion, and it heavily hampers the experience. Great games make you want to do what the game wants you to do, aligning the goals, mantaining this projection of yourself within the game. A great example of this is the way that Journey uses wind gusts to subtly veer you into the path, without putting a rigid YOU SHALL NOT PASS wall.

As soon as I come home from New York, I'm gonna get this game. I've heard a lot about it everywhere I went. I'm not too big into zombies be it video games or film cause they always come off to me as action and gore first, story and characters second. The fact that Walking Dead seems to be so different is enough to get me to try it out.

I really enjoyed the Jimquisition Awards. Hope you continue this next year!

ExtraDebit:Walking Dead was a good experience but can hardly be called a "game", there's hardly any gameplay in it. It's more like an interactive movie and for something with its main emphasis on story it doesn't even have multiple endings. In addition for people who played the scenarios multiple times they'll realized the player's choice is an illusion which doesn't really change anything. The people who are going to die are going to die and the ones that's going to live will live.

While it certainly deserves mentioning, it's by no way "game of the year".

The whole point of a game is to offer an interactive experience. The Walking Dead does this and more. An emphasis on storytelling does not mean multiple endings, and the whole point of the choices are to put you on the spot. Of all titles released in 2012, no game is more deserving of such an award, because it was such a sheer emotional powerhouse.

I know it's a very Nintendo fanboy card to play, but games are about Gameplay, and gameplay should enhance the experience of the story.

Well, some might argue that games are about the experience and, as long as I enjoyed the experience, then there is no reason to worry about how much interactivity or gameplay that there is in the game.

There's no reason to think that there is a minimum level or type of interactivity or gameplay that is required to enhance an experience, as long as the experience is good, right? This was a phenomenal experience for what it was.

Yep I agree, engagement doesn't fully respond to gameplay (about that term "interactivity", don't get me started, but a game is not more interactive because you can press more buttons, that has nothing to do with engagement or interactivity), but then there are more issues with the Walking Dead.

To keep it on the less theoretical side, it wasn't a bad experience for sure, but I did not think the game iself was enhanced by the functional implementation(in fact, the structured nature of the game often managed to break the 4th wall, particularly when dealing with the few puzzles of the game), particulary in some situations where I KNEW EXACTLY -what- to do, but not -how- to do it (the old try everything everywhere philosophy of adventure games).

It is all a matter of experience for sure, but when you -feel- that you are doing what the game wants you to be doing, rather than whay you think you should be doing, it shatters the illusion, and it heavily hampers the experience. Great games make you want to do what the game wants you to do, aligning the goals, mantaining this projection of yourself within the game. A great example of this is the way that Journey uses wind gusts to subtly veer you into the path, without putting a rigid YOU SHALL NOT PASS wall.

To be fair, this is one of the few games that truly aligned the player's motivations with the protagonist's: protecting Clementine.

I still think it's wrong to call this anything like "Game of the Year", instead of say "Interactive Experience/Movie of the Year" since it isn't much of a *game* at all and most of the choices the player is allowed to make won't make much of a difference overall. Either he's going to get outvoted or the same things will happen in a slightly different variety.

It's an improved and spruced-up version of this:

And I don't know if "games" should be awarded for being less like games.

Well, some might argue that games are about the experience and, as long as I enjoyed the experience, then there is no reason to worry about how much interactivity or gameplay that there is in the game.

There's no reason to think that there is a minimum level or type of interactivity or gameplay that is required to enhance an experience, as long as the experience is good, right? This was a phenomenal experience for what it was.

Yep I agree, engagement doesn't fully respond to gameplay (about that term "interactivity", don't get me started, but a game is not more interactive because you can press more buttons, that has nothing to do with engagement or interactivity), but then there are more issues with the Walking Dead.

To keep it on the less theoretical side, it wasn't a bad experience for sure, but I did not think the game iself was enhanced by the functional implementation(in fact, the structured nature of the game often managed to break the 4th wall, particularly when dealing with the few puzzles of the game), particulary in some situations where I KNEW EXACTLY -what- to do, but not -how- to do it (the old try everything everywhere philosophy of adventure games).

It is all a matter of experience for sure, but when you -feel- that you are doing what the game wants you to be doing, rather than whay you think you should be doing, it shatters the illusion, and it heavily hampers the experience. Great games make you want to do what the game wants you to do, aligning the goals, mantaining this projection of yourself within the game. A great example of this is the way that Journey uses wind gusts to subtly veer you into the path, without putting a rigid YOU SHALL NOT PASS wall.

To be fair, this is one of the few games that truly aligned the player's motivations with the protagonist's: protecting Clementine.

Yes but once again, that is a story resource, not a gameplay aspect. And that works as a motivation, but doesn't fix the problems of the game.I'm speaking very specifically when you for example:

I understand that videogames are limited, all options aren't accountable for... but it seems to me this is limiting them even further.

This is not organic.. this is still awkward walkthrough material. And although some of that might be desirable, you don't want to bludgeon the player over the head with it. This BREAKS the "immersion", kills the pacing and draws you away from the experience (and this is just an example, there are SEVERAL situations like it).

All that said, I do acknowledge that the games have an above average story, and great writing, but as I said, beyond that they do little to bring any aspect of the medium forward (In fact some could say they are moving it backwards).

I enjoyed The Walking Dead a lot and, for what it is, I think it's a great experience, perhaps even award worthy.

But to see Jim, who has up to this point been stronly on the "gameplay" side of the "gameplay vs. story" argument, award a game that is all story and no gameplay is truly bewildering. He talks for almost 5 minutes with awe in his voice about characters, about the script, about the emotions, without even mentioning for a second how the game actually plays. Perphaps because it actually doesn't.